CENA v.

CSC
G.R. No. 97419
July 3, 1992
Medialdea, J.
Tan de Guzman
GAUDENCIO
T.
CENA
petitioners
responden THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and THE HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, in her
ts capacity as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission

summary Cena lacked around 3 years and 3 months of service before reaching the 15-

year period to enable him to retire with full benefits under the old age pension,
so he asked for an extension. CSC only gave him 1 year extension pursuant to
their Memo. SC held that CSC Memo 27 was not valid because the limitation
has no relation to or connection with the provision of the law (PD 1146)
supposed to be carried into effect. The LRA of the Department of Justice has
the discretion to allow Cena to extend and complete the 15-year service so
that he may retire with full benefits under Section 11 par. (b) of P.D. 1146.

facts of the case

November 16, 1978 February 15, 1987: Cena entered government service as Legal
Officer II of the Law Department of Caloocan City. He stayed here for 7 years until his
transfer to the Office of the Congressman of 1 st District of Caloocan where he worked for 3
months as Supervising Staff Officer.
July 16, 1987: Appointed Register of Deeds of Malabon, Metro Manila.
January 22, 1991: Cenas 65th birthday also the compulsory retirement age.
Total years of service on 65th birthday = 11 years, 9 months and 6 days.
Before reaching his 65th birthday, Cena requested the Secretary of Justice, through the
Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) that he be allowed to extend his service to
complete the 15-year requirement to enable him to retire with full benefits of old age pension
under Sec 11 of P.D. 1146 or the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977.
LRA Administrator sought ruling from CSC WON to allow extension of 3 years and 3 months. If
allowed, Cena would be retiring at the age of 68.
CSC: denied Cenas request at first but upon a motion for reconsideration (MR) from Cena,
allowed the extension of 1 year. Citing CSC Memo Circular No. 27: Any request for the extension
of service of compulsory retirees to complete the 15 years service requirement for retirement
shall be allowed only to permanent appointees in the career service who are regular members of
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), and shall be granted for a period not
exceeding 1 year. 2nd MR denied.
OSG: the questioned provision being generally worded, Section 11 par. (b), P.D. 1146 has general
application, thus respondent CSC has no authority to limit through CSC Memo Circular No. 27 the
privilege under said section to government employees who lack just one year to complete the
15-year service requirement.
CSC: CSC has the power and authority, among others, to grant or allow extension of service
beyond retirement age pursuant to Section 12 par. (14), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of
Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) 1.

issue

WON CSC may limit the extension of service of an employee through a memorandum order? NO,
the Administrative Code cannot be interpreted to authorize CSC to limit to only 1 year the

1 Sec. 12. Powers and Functions. The Commission shall have the following powers and
functions: (14) Take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters
in the Civil Service including extension of service beyond retirement age
1

extension of service of an employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65
without having completed 15 years of service, when said limitation has no relation to or
connection with the provision of the law supposed to be carried into effect.

ratio
Ruling: The LRA of the Department of Justice has the discretion to allow Cena to extend and
complete the 15-year service so that he may retire with full benefits under Section 11 par. (b) of
P.D. 1146.
As a law of general application, the Administrative Code of 1987 cannot authorize the
modification of an express provision of a special law (PD 1146). Otherwise, the intent and
purpose of the provisions on retirement and pension of P.D. 1146 would be rendered nugatory
and meaningless.
Relevant Law => PD 1146 provides:
Sec. 11. Conditions for Old-Age Pension. (a) Old-age pension shall be paid to a member who: (b) Unless the
service is extended by appropriate authorities, retirement shall be compulsory for an employee of sixty-five years of
age with at least fifteen years of service: Provided, That if he has less than 15 years of service, he shall be
allowed to continue in the service to complete the fifteen years.

Being remedial in character, a statute creating a pension or establishing retirement plan

should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited
thereby. The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in order that
the efficiency, security and well-being of government employees may be enhanced (Bautista vs.
Auditor General)
Double purpose of pension, which partakes of the nature of "retained wages" of the
retiree.
(1) to entice competent men and women to enter the government service, and
(2) permit them to retire from the service with relative security, not only for those who have
retained their vigor, but more so for those who have been incapacitated by illness or accident.
The Supreme Court has applied the liberal approach in interpreting statutes creating
pension or establishing retirement plans in cases involving officials of the Judiciary
who lacked the age and service requirement for retirement. We see no cogent reason to
rule otherwise in the case of ordinary employees of the Executive Branch. (In Re: Application for
Gratuity Benefits of Associate Justice Plana; in Re: Application for Retirement under RA 910 of
Associate Justice Britanico of the Intermediate Appellate Court)
Recent Cases of extension approved by the Supreme Court:
1990: Allowed clerk of court to extend for 5 years even if she had only been in government
service for 10 years. The Court observed that Mrs. Bocade is still performing her duties without
any adverse complaints from her superior and that she is physically fit for work per report of the
Medical Clinic.
1991: Ms. Tiangco, Budget Officer of the Supreme Court was given an extension of 3 years and
she has been in government service for only 11 years and 1 month.
Limitation: when the Court allows seeming exceptions to fixed rules for certain retired Judges or
Justices, there are ample reasons behind each grant of an exception. The crediting of
accumulated leaves to make up for lack of required age or length of service is not done
indiscriminately. It is always on case to case basis (In re: Gregorio G. Pineda).

Essential Factor in Granting the Extension: only if satisfied that the career of the retiree was
marked by competence, integrity, and dedication to the public service (Re: Gregorio Pineda)
The right under Section 11, par. (b) is open to all employees similarly situated, so it does not
offend the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Memo Circular 65 n/a to Cena
Memo Circular No. 65 allowing retention of service for only 6 months for "extremely meritorious
reasons" should apply only to employees or officials who have reached the compulsory
retirement age of 65 years but who have completed the 15-year service requirement
for retirement purposes. It should not apply to those who have reached the compulsory
retirement age of 65 years, but who opted to avail of the old-age pension under P.D. 1146, in
which case, they are allowed, at the discretion of the agency concerned, to complete the 15-year
service requirement.